SRI International Examines Title I Accountability and Improvement Efforts under the "No Child Left Behind" Act

MENLO PARK, Calif. -- May 8, 2006 -- SRI International’s Center for Education Policy today released findings from a three-year study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education examining accountability requirements under Title I of the "No Child Left Behind" Act (NCLB) for the years 2001 through 2004. The report is based on surveys of a nationally representative sample of schools and school districts that are working towards the NCLB goal of student proficiency by 2013-14. The study was commissioned to better understand how states, districts and schools are implementing the Title I accountability provisions of NCLB.

A school’s eligibility for Title I funds is determined by the percentage of students from low-income families living in a school district. Title I schools are eligible for additional funding and services that could help at-risk students meet state proficiency goals.

SRI findings for 2002-03, the first full year of NCLB implementation, show there were significant gaps between the NCLB vision and the implementation of standards and accountability systems in schools nationwide. While there was broader support for NCLB in 2003-04 than in 2002-2003, the likelihood of reaching proficiency benchmarks varied greatly among states and school districts. The chances that a school would be "identified for improvement" were much higher for schools in districts that were large, urban and poor.

SRI’s Key Findings:

• Schools in small districts were more likely than those in large districts to improve, and therefore cease to be identified for improvement. For this reason, schools identified for improvement are more concentrated in large urban districts.
• More students were eligible for Title I public school choice and supplemental educational services in 2003-04 than in 2002-03, but a greater percentage of students were participating in supplemental services.
• From one year to the next, more states were providing technical assistance to identified schools.
• Overall, school improvement strategies remained similar across the three years of the study.

"SRI’s comprehensive survey of schools and school districts nationwide reveals a growing problem in large urban school districts," said Chris Padilla, assistant director of SRI’s Center for Education Policy and the study’s project director. "While a high proportion of the schools that were continuously identified for improvement engaged in the most improvement and support activities, the activities had little effect on the likelihood that a school would improve its status. Curriculum alignment -- mapping instructional materials to a set of standards -- supported by professional development was the only strategy that was a strong indicator of whether a school would exit out of improvement status. Our findings indicate that school leadership needs support to engage in a coherent and sustained approach that has potential for long-term success."

###